OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief District Judge.

On September 21, 2018, Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP's ("Deloitte") moved to compel documents related to Plaintiffs' financial condition at the time of their Aequitas security transactions and to Plaintiffs' damages claims.1 [364]. On December 10, 2018, Judge Acosta issued an Order on Defendant's Motion to Compel [421] that denied Deloitte's September 2018 Motion as well as a second motion to compel filed in October 2018. Deloitte filed objections [431] to Judge Acosta's order denying the September 2018 motion to compel documents related to Plaintiffs' financial condition. Plaintiffs filed a response [446] opposing Deloitte's objections.

DISCUSSION

When a magistrate judge has ruled on a non-dispositive matter, I may reconsider his decision only if the objecting party has "shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly en-oneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). I am not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has not objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review the magistrate judge's decision depends on whether the matter is dispositive and whether objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any pati of the magistrate judge's recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta's analysis, and I affam his Order [421] denying Deloitte's Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Financial Condition and Damages Documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.